The Future of US Political Parties

[Governor PiT]

2008: If the Democrats loose I could see a split between the Soros/Move on wing and the Blue Dog wing. If the GOP looses I could see a split between the Neo Cons/Corporate Globalist and the Patriots.

2012: a new populist/centrist party will form, or will grow out of an existing party such as the reform or libertarian party.

[Joel the Attention Whore]

A populist party growing out of the Libertarian Party?  Unlikely.

[Alcon]

I think you are allowing your romantic ideals to enter your predictions too much.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Kind of hard to predict.  I think the Democrats move towards a more fiscally responsible approach, and drift a little bit back towards the center on social issues.  Republicans turn a little to the left on economics, and continue their conservatism on social matters, as to not lose their base.  Basically the result is what has been happening.  Suburbia becomes more Democratic, and rural America becomes overwhelmingly Republican.  Big cities vs. small towns all over again. 

[Governor PiT]

2008: If the Democrats loose I could see a split between the Soros/Move on wing and the Blue Dog wing. If the GOP looses I could see a split between the Neo Cons/Corporate Globalist and the Patriots.

2012: a new populist/centrist party will form, or will grow out of an existing party such as the reform or libertarian party.

I could also see patries form around ethnic lines, with a Nationalist/American Party and a latino oriented party.

[Alcon]

2008: If the Democrats loose I could see a split between the Soros/Move on wing and the Blue Dog wing. If the GOP looses I could see a split between the Neo Cons/Corporate Globalist and the Patriots.

2012: a new populist/centrist party will form, or will grow out of an existing party such as the reform or libertarian party.

I could also see patries form around ethnic lines, with a Nationalist/American Party and a latino oriented party.

Eww, I hope not.  I'd be crestfallen.

[Jake]

There is no evidence that any other party other than the Big Two will attain any sort of power, and there's definitely no example of an independent making any moves towards running a well-funded Presidential/Congressional effort. The main evidence behind this is that no non-incumbent third party candidate has won any election of significance in the last few election cycles. None will until they build their grassroots and start running loads of credible candidates. That takes a lot of money. Money no third party has.

I'm assuming you think a third party will emerge to exploit American's racist tendencies on immigration? Just remember, the brown haters in the GOP Congressional Caucus have much more long term sway then the Bush White House does on GOP policy.

[Governor PiT]

The Republcian party seems to be getting more socially conservative, and fiscally liberal.

[Governor PiT]

if the Republicans loose and the dems go further left a new centrist party will form by 2012.

[NDN]

The Republcian party seems to be getting more socially conservative, and fiscally liberal.

Sort of. The GOP has gotten more focused on social issues than economic ones and has engaged in deficit/pork spending even more than the Democrats. But they're still very much dominated by the supply-side types. I could see them going protectionist and/or dropping some of their old economic stances though.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

fiscally liberal as in more fiscally statist, dropping the mention of balanced budgets, more blatantly pro-corporate as opposed to free market.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the current trend of both parties moving to the right continues, I would expect the Republican party to decline as a force, and a new liberal party to split off from the Democratic party.

[Governor PiT]

depends on the next election. if the Hillary wins it will unite the GOP, and force tehm to get their act together by 2012. if Rudy wins conservatives will become further alienated.

[Storebought]

There is a Wall Street Journal article about this very scenario. I won't post it, since it requires registration, though.

Fezzy underestimates the extent to which Bush has manipulated the party to his (Bush's) own image. Naturally enough, that, since Bush is the primary fund raiser within the GOP, and thereby has the greatest clout.

Business types are fleeing the GOP in droves (which is even apparent in the fundraising done by the GOP independent of Bush), precisely because of the populist direction the party takes on illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, gay-ism (that really is the best word for it, since the gay issue takes a larger scope than the phrase 'Constitutional legality of same-sex marriage' allows), public religiosity, etc.

The GOP can remain viable if it abandons the rest of its concerns on deficits, taxes, and such, and becomes purely a party of the middle- and lower-class nonunion white. But it will have split itself off entirely from its own history.

As for the Democrats, they can say anything and remain the nation's first or second party, since the Democratic Party has always been more about its competing special interest groups than a coherent ideology per se.

[Governor PiT]

If the current trend of both parties moving to the right continues, I would expect the Republican party to decline as a force, and a new liberal party to split off from the Democratic party.

since when were the dems moving to the right?

[opebo]

It is absurd to call Bush or the Republican Party in general 'fiscally liberal'.   This is both a perversion of that term and a complete misunderstanding of the economic policy of the Party over the last 26 years. 

In fact of course the policies of the GOP have been precisely as right-wing and redistributionist (to the owners) as always, and whether money was 'borrowed and spent' or left 'private' is irrelevant.  Too much focus on the surface and the false public/private dichotomy confuses you people.

The interesting thing about economic policy is that the Democratic Party - only ever at best centrist on the issue - has moved to positively right-wing as well over the last 20 years or so.  I can only hope that this changes, but as far as I can tell there is absolutely no mechanism for this to occur - everything is (of course) stacked against it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I could see the GOP evolving into a "For God and Country" Party. Basically strongly socially authoritarian, economically catholic corporatist/christian democratic and VERY nationalistic.

[minionofmidas]

If the current trend of both parties moving to the right continues, I would expect the Republican party to decline as a force, and a new liberal party to split off from the Democratic party.

since when were the dems moving to the right?

Ca.1973.

[minionofmidas]

It is absurd to call Bush or the Republican Party in general 'fiscally liberal'.   This is both a perversion of that term and a complete misunderstanding of the economic policy of the Party over the last 26 years. 

In fact of course the policies of the GOP have been precisely as right-wing and redistributionist (to the owners) as always, and whether money was 'borrowed and spent' or left 'private' is irrelevant.  Too much focus on the surface and the false public/private dichotomy confuses you people.

That is precisely the historical meaning of the term "liberal", though.

[opebo]

I could see the GOP evolving into a "For God and Country" Party. Basically strongly socially authoritarian, economically catholic corporatist/christian democratic and VERY nationalistic.

That is exactly what the GOP is and has been for decades, Straha.

It is absurd to call Bush or the Republican Party in general 'fiscally liberal'.   This is both a perversion of that term and a complete misunderstanding of the economic policy of the Party over the last 26 years. 

In fact of course the policies of the GOP have been precisely as right-wing and redistributionist (to the owners) as always, and whether money was 'borrowed and spent' or left 'private' is irrelevant.  Too much focus on the surface and the false public/private dichotomy confuses you people.

That is precisely the historical meaning of the term "liberal", though.

Well of course - I was using the term in its american fashion.  However in this case it could be thought of as 'liberal' in the sense of 'generous' - fiscal liberality rather than fiscal restraint.  But of course this is all beside the point as US government 'spending' is done only to reinforce the so-called 'private' power relationships.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Not really Opebo. The GOP still (at least until the bush administration) talks about fiscal conservatism and on the parts where it's socially conservative its merely fundamentalist reactionism as opposed to cultural conservatism where it's fundy reactionism combined with STRONG xenophobia/nativism.

[opebo]

Not really Opebo. The GOP still (at least until the bush administration) talks about fiscal conservatism and on the parts where it's socially conservative its merely fundamentalist reactionism as opposed to cultural conservatism where it's fundy reactionism combined with STRONG xenophobia/nativism.

You're talking about minor changes in the window dressing.  Keep in mind that 'fiscal conservatism' means in practice preserving the class relationships, so giving 'government money' to the rich is not any different from maintainging a low-spending regime.

[Stranger in a strange land]

2008: If the Democrats loose I could see a split between the Soros/Move on wing and the Blue Dog wing. If the GOP looses I could see a split between the Neo Cons/Corporate Globalist and the Patriots.

2012: a new populist/centrist party will form, or will grow out of an existing party such as the reform or libertarian party.

I could also see patries form around ethnic lines, with a Nationalist/American Party and a latino oriented party.

Then why is there no black party, and why has there never been a significant one?